3. Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay  (Read 94 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« on: »
Hi All,

I recieved a PCN for parking in a disabled bay, across teh road aroudn 6 houses down,  which was the only bay available on the entire street. We had to load a computer desk.

IMG 1154 hosted at ImgBB
Image IMG 1154 hosted on ImgBB
ImgBB · ibb.co

IMG 1155 hosted at ImgBB
Image IMG 1155 hosted on ImgBB
ImgBB · ibb.co


Contravention 165 - Parked in a permit space or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit where required (dedicated disable bay)

I appealed, stating this, with pictures of the desk, the road showing no parking, highlihgting, I had two choices, block the road as i loaded, park up on disabled and load carefully. The warden may have just missed us as we parked and walked to get the desk, otherwise I believe he would have allowed us to load.

My first appeal to the LA:

"I am writing to formally appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice issued for my vehicle while it was parked in a resident permit holder disabled bay.
At the time the PCN was issued, I was actively engaged in loading heavy goods to/from my property on the same road.

Due to the nature and weight of the items, it was necessary to park as close as possible. Unfortunately, there were no available spaces directly adjacent to my property, and the nearest available space was the disabled bay further down the road.

I would like to highlight that:
* My vehicle holds a valid resident permit for this zone;
* Resident of the same road where the vehicle was parked;
* The vehicle was being used solely for the purpose of loading/unloading large/heavy items;
* The activity was continuous and required me to move between the property and the vehicle.

I fully appreciate that disabled bays are intended for specific users and would not ordinarily park in such a space. However, in this instance, the lack of available parking meant that using the nearest bay was necessary for a short and reasonable period in order to carry out the loading.

I also understand that Traffic Management Orders allows for loading and unloading in such bays for a reasonable duration, particularly where the activity is continuous and necessary. I believe my actions fall within this exemption.

To support this, I have attached photographic evidence showing:
* The entire road was full at the time, including a view from my property demonstrating the lack of available parking nearby;
* The items being loaded, illustrating that they were heavy/bulky and required the vehicle to be positioned as close as possible.

Additionally, I spoke with the Civil Enforcement Officer after the PCN was issued, who indicated that had they observed the loading activity taking place, the PCN would not have been issued. Unfortunately, as I was loading from a short distance away, they were not aware of the situation at the time.

Given these circumstances—namely that I was engaged in genuine loading activity, that I hold a valid resident permit, that no closer parking was available, and that the use of the bay was necessary and temporary—I kindly request that discretion be exercised and that the PCN be cancelled."


Councils Response:

Screenshot 2026 07 14 at 12 10 34 hosted at ImgBB
Image Screenshot 2026 07 14 at 12 10 34 hosted on ImgBB
ImgBB · ibb.co

Screenshot 2026 07 14 at 12 11 35 hosted at ImgBB
Image Screenshot 2026 07 14 at 12 11 35 hosted on ImgBB
ImgBB · ibb.co


I have requested the TMO for the bay, which states the following under 11.1.g and 11.1.h (sorry was unable to upload a PDF), this is what we were doing litereally, so this is the exemption that would apply surely?

Screenshot 2026 07 14 at 12 25 26 hosted at ImgBB
Image Screenshot 2026 07 14 at 12 25 26 hosted on ImgBB
ImgBB · ibb.co


Question is if this would fall under adjacent, as in are they literally saying the house has to  be 180 degrees ifront of the bay? as my house was across the road but 6-7 houses away.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2026, 12:34:52 pm by LondonTraveller84 »
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #1 on: »
They are talking nonsense - loading is an exemption in a designated permit bay or indeed in a standard disabled bay.

But we can try and check the traffic order to be sure.

Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #2 on: »
Quote from: stamfordman on July 14, 2026, 01:17:51 pm
But we can try and check the traffic order to be sure.

How can I attach a PDF (TMO) to this post, don't see an attahcment for files :/ or maybe im blind.

Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #3 on: »
Have you got a web link to it.

Or put it on say Google drive, Dropbox etc. and set to public.
Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #4 on: »
Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #5 on: »
The order clearly exempts loading.

Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #6 on: »
Exactly the two clauses i saw and was goigng to respond with to the NTO... It says house/premise adajecent to the parking place, I assume this isnt literally, ie as long as its on the same road and walking distance? as the parking place was further down from the premise/vice versa by apprix 6 or so houses.


A shame the councils must know this yet blatently ignore this, waste their time and ours.. I'd understand if it was a genuine case of not loading/unloading, but no descretion applied even when evidence supplied with the fact there is a exemption.

Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #7 on: »
They don't wast their time, just yours. They ruthlessly game the system by refusing all representations knowing that if they do, most people (like greater than 95%),  then just cough-up being scared of possible huge penalties at adjudication. Of course there are no "huge penalties" at all at adjudication, but one must pay the full penalty rather than the discount if one loses.

Again, most people don't know the ins and outs of parking law, so just pay the discount to make it all go away. In doing this, they confirm councils in their disgraceful practices that are totally against all government guidance
Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #8 on: »
Yep a shame! sometimes the right people need to be in power to put these lot in their place! and that'd only happen with hefty fines for them! back to the topic :) I'll go ahead and using the 2 clauses, and assuming the adjacent is a broader term for across the road somewhere near or further down.



Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #9 on: »
Going to send across the formal appeal later today with the below, feel like having a dig and aim at them!


I would ask the Council to explain how it can justify and support the following statement made in its response to my appeal:

"The loading exemption you referred to does not apply in Disabled Residents Permit bays. These bays cannot be used for loading or unloading, even for short periods, and even where the activity is continuous. Parking in such a bay without displaying the required permit is a contravention, regardless of the reason for stopping."

This statement is inconsistent with the relevant Traffic Management Orders, namely TMO '27 East Ham Disabled Residents No. 1 Order 2005, read together with TMO 2017 No. 14 (EH) (DRPH) (SPA) (No. 1, 2005) (Amendment No. 11) Order 2017.

Those Orders clearly provide multiple exemptions under which a vehicle may lawfully wait in a Disabled Residents Permit bay. In particular, Articles 11.1(g) and 11.1(h) expressly permit a vehicle to wait in the bay for the purpose of loading or unloading, including the removal of furniture to or from a dwelling house, provided that the vehicle does not wait for more than 20 minutes. These provisions are explicit exemptions that apply during the prescribed hours and directly contradict the Council's assertion that loading and unloading are never permitted in such bays.

I request that the Council explains the legal basis upon which it claims that no loading exemption exists, despite the clear wording of the applicable Traffic Management Orders.

I also request that the Council cancel this Penalty Charge Notice immediately.

Finally, I strongly recommend that the Council provides appropriate training and guidance to the officers responsible for considering representations. The response I received demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of the applicable legal exemptions or a failure to properly consider the legislation relevant to this case. Neither outcome is acceptable and undermines confidence in the fairness of the Council's enforcement process.
Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #10 on: »
Please stop calling it a Disabled......, I find it confusing.

It's a parking place reserved to a specific user, namely the holder(s) of permit ***. As such, para. 11 of the ********Order applies.

Given this, the authority's reasoning for rejecting my representations is at odds with the Order's provisions which specifically allow conditional loading, namely:

**paste 11(1) (a), (g) and (h)

I invite the authority to reconsider its position before it is necessary for me to formalise the above in representations against a Notice to Owner.



 
Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #11 on: »
OP - do you have a NTO. If so what is its date.

I would start reps with:

The contravention did not occur as I was engaged in the exempt activity of loading.

In your rejection of my initial challenge you said:

and then shorten it in line with tincombe.

Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #12 on: »
Quote from: stamfordman on Yesterday at 06:19:19 pm
OP - do you have a NTO. If so what is its date.

Yes it's dated 18/06/2026. I can attach here if required.

Quote from: tincombe on Yesterday at 05:58:05 pm
Please stop calling it a Disabled......, I find it confusing

Sorry, thought i'd be specific in case the council try and be smart, what you've said makes more sense.

I'll use your structure/template, and the bulk of my reply where i was having a go, and  reword the last bit to

I invite the authority to reconsider its position before it is necessary for me to formalise the above in representations during ajudication.



Logged
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #13 on: »
Get something in as you are approaching deadline.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
« Reply #14 on: »
++1.

NTO dated 18 June, last day of 28-day period is 19th July.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
  3. Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay